Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Koedatichgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 303 (1988) (holding to establish a third-party guilt defense, a defendant must do more than "raise[] a possible ground of suspicion"). 2025"To avoid that issue, a defendant may not seek to introduce evidence in order 'to prove some hostile event and leave its connection with the case to mere conjecture.'" Id. at 66-67 (quoting Sturdivant, 31 N.J. at 179 ). "[T]he evidence a defendant seeks to admit in support of a third-party guilt defense must be capable of demonstrating 'some link between the [third-party] evidence and the victim or the crime.'" Perry, 225 N.J. at 239 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 301 (1988)). | 4 | 7 |
State v. Cottogreen2 sentences2026A-4010-23 21 "When identification is a 'key issue,' the trial court must instruct the jury on identification, even if a defendant does not make th[e] request." State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 325 (2005) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 291 (1981)). 2020See State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 334 (2005) (requiring a that Senabria gave a description of the suspect that was deleted from the audio recording. 4 We recognize that information entered into the CAD system can be deleted. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bobby Perry A/K/A Bobby Penny(075114)green2 sentences2025"To avoid that issue, a defendant may not seek to introduce evidence in order 'to prove some hostile event and leave its connection with the case to mere conjecture.'" Id. at 66-67 (quoting Sturdivant, 31 N.J. at 179 ). "[T]he evidence a defendant seeks to admit in support of a third-party guilt defense must be capable of demonstrating 'some link between the [third-party] evidence and the victim or the crime.'" Perry, 225 N.J. at 239 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 301 (1988)). 2020To avoid that issue, a defendant may not seek to introduce evidence in order “to prove some hostile event and leave its connection with the case to mere conjecture.” Sturdivant, 31 N.J. at 179 . “[T]he evidence a defendant seeks to admit in support of a third-party guilt defense must be capable of demonstrating ‘some link between the [third-party] evidence and the victim or the crime.’” Perry, 225 N.J. at 239 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 301 (1988)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Sturdivantgreen2 sentences2025"To avoid that issue, a defendant may not seek to introduce evidence in order 'to prove some hostile event and leave its connection with the case to mere conjecture.'" Id. at 66-67 (quoting Sturdivant, 31 N.J. at 179 ). "[T]he evidence a defendant seeks to admit in support of a third-party guilt defense must be capable of demonstrating 'some link between the [third-party] evidence and the victim or the crime.'" Perry, 225 N.J. at 239 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 301 (1988)). 2020To avoid that issue, a defendant may not seek to introduce evidence in order “to prove some hostile event and leave its connection with the case to mere conjecture.” Sturdivant, 31 N.J. at 179 . “[T]he evidence a defendant seeks to admit in support of a third-party guilt defense must be capable of demonstrating ‘some link between the [third-party] evidence and the victim or the crime.’” Perry, 225 N.J. at 239 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 301 (1988)). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Loftingreen2 sentences2025"To avoid that issue, a defendant may not seek to introduce evidence in order 'to prove some hostile event and leave its connection with the case to mere conjecture.'" Id. at 66-67 (quoting Sturdivant, 31 N.J. at 179 ). "[T]he evidence a defendant seeks to admit in support of a third-party guilt defense must be capable of demonstrating 'some link between the [third-party] evidence and the victim or the crime.'" Perry, 225 N.J. at 239 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 301 (1988)). 2000See 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1477 (3d ed.1940). [1] [ Report, supra, at 171.] The admissibility of evidence under N.J.R.E. 603(c)(25) has been considered in the context of the third-party guilt doctrine most recently by the Supreme Court in State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 311-12 , 548 A. 2d 939 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017 , 109 S.Ct. 813 , 102 L.Ed. 2d 803 (1989), State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 345 , 680 A. 2d 677 (1996), and State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 238-245 , 729 A. 2d 31 (1999). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Waysgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171, 188 (2004) (holding, in the context of a newly discovered evidence claim, that "evidence that supports a defense, such as alibi, third-party guilt, or a general denial of guilt would be material"). 2020Thus, focusing on prongs one and three of the Carter test, we are satisfied the claimed newly discovered evidence would not "shake the very foundation of the State's case" nor "alter the earlier jury verdict." Nash, 212 N.J. at 549 (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 189 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2026We decline on the present facts to create and retrospectively apply any such rule, especially since in this instance, the circumstances of the State's failure to obtain a copy of the music studio surveillance video were revealed to the jury through exhaustive and skillful cross examination and were highlighted by both defense counsel in summation. 13 See State v. Washington, 453 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2026A-4010-23 21 "When identification is a 'key issue,' the trial court must instruct the jury on identification, even if a defendant does not make th[e] request." State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 325 (2005) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 291 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2026Defendant argues he is entitled to a hearing because, aside from James's statement exonerating him, "[n]one of the other evidence presented in []his motion has been heard on the merits." Defendant further asserts Johnson's admissions, along with "recantations by two of the four witnesses that testified against [defendant] coupled with alibi and other exculpatory evidence is . . . clear and convincing evidence of innocence," and "[n]o credible evidence remains to support [defendant's] conviction." Defendant claims he has satisfied Carter's first prong because all the evidence he presented is ma | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arthurgreen2 sentences2021"Determining which witnesses to call to the stand is one of the most difficult strategic decisions that any trial attorney must confront." State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 320 (2005). "[L]ike other aspects of trial representation defense attorney's decision concerning which witnesses to call to the stand is 'an art,' and a court's review of such a decision should be 'highly deferential . . . . '" Id. at 321 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 689 ) (internal citations omitted). 2021"Determining which witnesses to call to the stand is one of the most difficult strategic decisions that any trial attorney must confront." State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 320 (2005). "[L]ike other aspects of trial representation defense attorney's decision concerning which witnesses to call to the stand is 'an art,' and a court's review of such a decision should be 'highly deferential . . . . '" Id. at 321 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 689 ) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State of New Jersey v. Isaac A. Younggreen1 sentence2021We likewise reject defendant's contention that the trial judge was obliged sua sponte to give a third-party guilt instruction. 7 As noted, neither party [ 448 N.J. Super. 206, 228 (App. Div. 2017) (alterations in original) (quoting Model Jury Charge (Criminal), "False in One False in All" (1991)).] 7 The third-party guilt model jury charge reads as follows: The defendant contends that there is evidence before you indicating that someone other than he or she may A-5002-17 30 requested this charge even though both sides agreed that a key disputed issue at trial was whether defendant was the pers | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2021"Determining which witnesses to call to the stand is one of the most difficult strategic decisions that any trial attorney must confront." State v. Arthur, 184 N.J. 307, 320 (2005). "[L]ike other aspects of trial representation defense attorney's decision concerning which witnesses to call to the stand is 'an art,' and a court's review of such a decision should be 'highly deferential . . . . '" Id. at 321 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 689 ) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fortingreen1 sentence2019See State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 332 (2005) (quoting State v. Fortin, 178 N.J. 540, 591 (2004) (noting a defendant's constitutional right to introduce evidence "if the proof offered has a rational tendency to engender a reasonable doubt with respect to an essential feature of the State's case")). "[E]ven if there is no evidence linking another specific suspect to the crime, we 'have recognized that evidence that tends to create reasonable doubt that someone else, generically, rather than defendant, committed the offense, is admissible.'" State v. Perry, 225 N.J. 222, 238-39 (2016) (quoting St | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2000See 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1477 (3d ed.1940). [1] [ Report, supra, at 171.] The admissibility of evidence under N.J.R.E. 603(c)(25) has been considered in the context of the third-party guilt doctrine most recently by the Supreme Court in State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 311-12 , 548 A. 2d 939 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017 , 109 S.Ct. 813 , 102 L.Ed. 2d 803 (1989), State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 345 , 680 A. 2d 677 (1996), and State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 238-245 , 729 A. 2d 31 (1999). 2000See 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1477 (3d ed.1940). [1] [ Report, supra, at 171.] The admissibility of evidence under N.J.R.E. 603(c)(25) has been considered in the context of the third-party guilt doctrine most recently by the Supreme Court in State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 311-12 , 548 A. 2d 939 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017 , 109 S.Ct. 813 , 102 L.Ed. 2d 803 (1989), State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 345 , 680 A. 2d 677 (1996), and State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 238-245 , 729 A. 2d 31 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Koedatich v. New Jerseygreen1 sentence2000See 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1477 (3d ed.1940). [1] [ Report, supra, at 171.] The admissibility of evidence under N.J.R.E. 603(c)(25) has been considered in the context of the third-party guilt doctrine most recently by the Supreme Court in State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 311-12 , 548 A. 2d 939 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017 , 109 S.Ct. 813 , 102 L.Ed. 2d 803 (1989), State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 345 , 680 A. 2d 677 (1996), and State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 238-245 , 729 A. 2d 31 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Millett
green
2 sentences2025Despite defendant's reliance on the single surveillance image and the sweatshirt seized from his bedroom, we agree with the PCR court that the record supports the inescapable conclusion defendant's counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and develop a third-party guilt defense because the evidence relied upon by defendant was not "capable of raising a reasonable doubt on the issue of defendant's guilt." Millett, 272 N.J. 2025Despite defendant's reliance on the single surveillance image and the sweatshirt seized from his bedroom, we agree with the PCR court that the record supports the inescapable conclusion defendant's counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and develop a third-party guilt defense because the evidence relied upon by defendant was not "capable of raising a reasonable doubt on the issue of defendant's guilt." Millett, 272 N.J. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Nash
green
1 sentence2020Thus, focusing on prongs one and three of the Carter test, we are satisfied the claimed newly discovered evidence would not "shake the very foundation of the State's case" nor "alter the earlier jury verdict." Nash, 212 N.J. at 549 (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 189 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jamil McKinney(073070)
green
1 sentence2020The charge as a whole, McKinney, 223 N.J. at 494 , underscored that the State always maintained the burden of proof for the substantive charges and "the identity of the person who committed the crime." The trial court also instructed the jury that the defense had no obligation to prove anything or present any evidence, including the identity of the person who committed the crime. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Rechtschaffer
green
2 sentences2003Our dissenting colleagues take the position that the threat to Proctor was admissible as evidence of Hughes’ consciousness of guilt of the Contreras murder, citing as support State v. Rechtschaffer, 70 N.J. 395 , 360 A.2d 362 (1976), and State v. West, 145 N.J.Super. 226 , 367 A.2d 453 (App.Div.1976), certif. denied, 73 N.J. 67 , 372 A.2d 332 (1977). 2003Our dissenting colleagues take the position that the threat to Proctor was admissible as evidence of Hughes’ consciousness of guilt of the Contreras murder, citing as support State v. Rechtschaffer, 70 N.J. 395 , 360 A.2d 362 (1976), and State v. West, 145 N.J.Super. 226 , 367 A.2d 453 (App.Div.1976), certif. denied, 73 N.J. 67 , 372 A.2d 332 (1977). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. West
neutral
2 sentences2003Our dissenting colleagues take the position that the threat to Proctor was admissible as evidence of Hughes’ consciousness of guilt of the Contreras murder, citing as support State v. Rechtschaffer, 70 N.J. 395 , 360 A.2d 362 (1976), and State v. West, 145 N.J.Super. 226 , 367 A.2d 453 (App.Div.1976), certif. denied, 73 N.J. 67 , 372 A.2d 332 (1977). 2003Our dissenting colleagues take the position that the threat to Proctor was admissible as evidence of Hughes’ consciousness of guilt of the Contreras murder, citing as support State v. Rechtschaffer, 70 N.J. 395 , 360 A.2d 362 (1976), and State v. West, 145 N.J.Super. 226 , 367 A.2d 453 (App.Div.1976), certif. denied, 73 N.J. 67 , 372 A.2d 332 (1977). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. West
green
2 sentences2003Our dissenting colleagues take the position that the threat to Proctor was admissible as evidence of Hughes’ consciousness of guilt of the Contreras murder, citing as support State v. Rechtschaffer, 70 N.J. 395 , 360 A.2d 362 (1976), and State v. West, 145 N.J.Super. 226 , 367 A.2d 453 (App.Div.1976), certif. denied, 73 N.J. 67 , 372 A.2d 332 (1977). 2003Our dissenting colleagues take the position that the threat to Proctor was admissible as evidence of Hughes’ consciousness of guilt of the Contreras murder, citing as support State v. Rechtschaffer, 70 N.J. 395 , 360 A.2d 362 (1976), and State v. West, 145 N.J.Super. 226 , 367 A.2d 453 (App.Div.1976), certif. denied, 73 N.J. 67 , 372 A.2d 332 (1977). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
New York ex rel. Stanley v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1996The third-party guilt doctrine is implicated when a defendant "seek[s] to prove that another agency produced the death with which he is charged." State v. Sturdivant, 31 N.J. 165, 179 , 155 A. 2d 771 (1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 956 , 80 S.Ct. 873 , 4 L.Ed. 2d 873 (1960). 1996The third-party guilt doctrine is implicated when a defendant “seek[s] to prove that another agency produced the death with which he is charged.” State v. Sturdivant, 31 N.J. 165, 179 , 155 A.2d 771 (1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 956 , 80 S.Ct. 873 , 4 L.Ed.2d 873 (1960). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sturdivant v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences1996The third-party guilt doctrine is implicated when a defendant "seek[s] to prove that another agency produced the death with which he is charged." State v. Sturdivant, 31 N.J. 165, 179 , 155 A. 2d 771 (1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 956 , 80 S.Ct. 873 , 4 L.Ed. 2d 873 (1960). 1996The third-party guilt doctrine is implicated when a defendant “seek[s] to prove that another agency produced the death with which he is charged.” State v. Sturdivant, 31 N.J. 165, 179 , 155 A.2d 771 (1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 956 , 80 S.Ct. 873 , 4 L.Ed.2d 873 (1960). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.